Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Jayhawker Soule · 06-17-2002, 10:33 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by joedad:
If I capitalize man and turn it into Man, what exactly IS that, rhetorically speaking, or any such capitalized common word for that matter?

I wonder how much of the difference resides 'in the eye of the beholder'. Both terms would be always capitalized if we were having this discussion in German. For me (rightly or wrongly) there is zero difference between god(s) and God(s).

Quote:

Originally posted by joedad:
I'm not a slave to etymology, but I think that it helps understand the development and today's usage of the word God.

But I believe the point being made by Drange and others is that there is a disconnect between etymology and usage. For example, Drange writes: "One virtue of this way of characterizing the three groups of cognitivists is that it captures the way the terms are commonly used in ordinary language, and, in particular, it makes the groups mutually exclusive."

It is entirely accurate to state that I don't believe the Chicago Bears will make it to the SuperBowl this year. Most folks hearing this will take it as a statement on the viability of the Chicago Bears. Very few will assume it to mean 'only' that I lack a Chicago-Bears-in-the-SuperBowl belief.

06-17-2002, 10:33 AM

Hellen,

Quote:

Fwiw, here's more about why I think the "God is undefined" approach is silly...

I think you could play the same game with anything that we all know does exist, in reality. (I'm not asserting God does but I'm simply showing why it's an absurd way to try to prove God's non-existence - if that's the point of it)

I agree. Frankly, I can't understand the popularity of what seems to be a patently ridiculous method. After all, since the notions of 'God' do not all have identical totally determinate meanings does not mean that "God" is meaingless.

Koyaanisqatsi · 06-17-2002, 11:22 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by HelenSL:

Koy, unless you are omniscient, how can you know your definition of 'atheist' is better than other peoples'?

It's not "my" definition, it is the definition inherent within the word!

A=without.
Theism=a belief in a god or gods.
Atheism=without a belief in a god or gods.

A + B = C!

And even if you are interpreting that "A" means "not" in this context, the same result would apply.

Thus, to be an atheist would be to not hold a belief in a god or gods.

What is being negated is the "belief" part.
<img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

Totalitarianist · 06-17-2002, 11:25 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by HelenSL:
atheist -- one who does not believe that the row of letters "God"/"Allah" in English refers to anything that exists.

Atheists lack a belief in the existence of God and everything synonymous to the word "God".

Many definitions of "God" exist; one of which, the Oriental one, is synonymous with the the laws of physics.

If all atheists lack a belief in all definitions of the word "God", they deny the laws of physics.

Edit: UBB code

[ June 17, 2002: Message edited by: Pseudonym ]

Koyaanisqatsi · 06-17-2002, 11:32 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by ReasonableDoubt:
Perhaps you're right. Perhaps those who wallow in common usage and refuse to bow to etymology should be battered with a good dictionary.

Common usage? How does that enter into this? Adding the prefix "A" negates the suffix. Period.

Quote:

MORE: At the same time, I suspect that you lack a belief in God, that you lack a belief in the Kizzuwadna, and that these represent distinctly different types of attitude.

Irrelevant to the proper usage and deconstruction of the term.

Atheist means exactly the same as Akizzuwadniest.

That is the entire purpose of the prefix; a negation of whatever is the suffix.

The second any human being on this planet (who speaks and understands English) places an "A" in front of any word of these types, the inescapable and absolute immutable meaning of so doing is to negate the substance of the suffix.

Common usage, formal usage, technical usage; all completely irrelevant.

Which means that anyone who does not understand the purpose of using the qualifying prefix "A" is simply incorrect.

It's not a judgement call; it's a fact of the English language.

[ June 17, 2002: Message edited by: Koyaanisqatsi ]

Jayhawker Soule · 06-17-2002, 12:11 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Koyaanisqatsi:
Common usage? How does that enter into this?

Lexemes and morphemes and extremes - Oh My! I think it's called communications ...

Quote:

No one has ever been able to define the word 'word' despite gargantuan efforts to do so. The linguistic concept of word: an analytic bibliography by Alphonse Juilland and Alexandra Roceric is a 118-page bibliography of books and articles (unsuccessfully) attempting to define 'word' over the past 3 millennia. Why can no one define 'word'? Maybe because words simply do not exist; rather, the sentences we speak are composed of lexemes and morphemes and these two linguistic objects differ too much to be subsumed under one concept.
[see <a href="http://www.yourdictionary.com/library/ling005.html" target="_blank">But There are no Such Things as Words!</a> - RD]

Koyaanisqatsi · 06-17-2002, 12:22 PM

We're not discussing a word, we're discussing the use and purpose of the prefix "A" and what that necessarily means when applied to a word!

It's more a matter of syntax, than etymology, or, for that matter, definition!

Define biphilism any damn way you want to define it.

The second you do, I can then--according to the rules of the English language--come along and slap a goddamned "A" on the front and negate it all.

Thus abiphilism instantly and automatically means "without biphilism."

Always.

All the time.

Forever.

Absolutely.

Without question or further comment.

In all known universes wherein the English language is spoken.

Immutably.

Unquestionably.

Never, ever, ever open to any form of debate or discussion.

Do not fold, spindle or mutilate.

Your results will not vary.

Void where prohibited.

Jayhawker Soule · 06-17-2002, 12:51 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Koyaanisqatsi:
We're not discussing a word, we're discussing the use and purpose of the prefix "A" and what that necessarily means when applied to a word!

So much power for such a little prefix. I stand in awe and disbelief.

Koyaanisqatsi · 06-17-2002, 12:52 PM

A mighty prefix, indeed. Yet so simple, again it makes one wonder why so few can grasp it's awesome purpose.

HelenM · 06-17-2002, 01:01 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Koyaanisqatsi:
A mighty prefix, indeed. Yet so simple, again it makes one wonder why so few can grasp it's awesome purpose.

Ok, well, maybe you're right since a[theist] means not[theist]. So, the common usages of atheist would be included in your/the technical definition of atheist but so would the common use of agnostic. Is that right?

But practically speaking, what use is it to be right if almost everyone else means something else by 'atheist' than you do?

I mean, it's useful in that you can be continually frustrated at everyone who has it wrong <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" /> ...but, otherwise, what use is it?

Isn't it as pointless as trying to correct people who say nukular, Wennsday, Febyouarry etc?

I.e. what you say will probably never catch on anyway...

love
Helen

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-17-2002, 12:22 PM	#37
Koyaanisqatsi Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Yes, I have dyslexia. Sue me. Posts: 6,508	We're not discussing a word, we're discussing the use and purpose of the prefix "A" and what that necessarily means when applied to a word! It's more a matter of syntax, than etymology, or, for that matter, definition! Define biphilism any damn way you want to define it. The second you do, I can then--according to the rules of the English language--come along and slap a goddamned "A" on the front and negate it all. Thus abiphilism instantly and automatically means "without biphilism." Always. All the time. Forever. Absolutely. Without question or further comment. In all known universes wherein the English language is spoken. Immutably. Unquestionably. Never, ever, ever open to any form of debate or discussion. Do not fold, spindle or mutilate. Your results will not vary. Void where prohibited.

06-17-2002, 12:52 PM	#39
Koyaanisqatsi Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Yes, I have dyslexia. Sue me. Posts: 6,508	A mighty prefix, indeed. Yet so simple, again it makes one wonder why so few can grasp it's awesome purpose.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.